I'm going to patent the Helicar. Its a car that gets you out of teatime traffic jams by means of a rotar propeller concealed in a secret compartment in the roof, you just hit the copter mode button. I've got the drawings done all I need now is for someone to invent it then I'm suing.
In order for you to be able to sue, you need to actually register the patent and have it granted.
They are pattenting a particular implimentation rather than the implimentations already being used.
If Apple patented the wheel people would be rightly pissed off. But if Apple pattented a wheel that was self supporting by magnets, had no spokes or hub and was powered by sunlight then that would be fine. However, no doubt parts of the internet would still go mad that Apple were patenting "the wheel"
No spokes or hubs? Wasn't that designed (and patented?) by Sbarro years back?
Willing to bet that the QI wireless charging standard (which Apple likely won't ever support) shouldn't have had half of its patents validated.
Prior art from some Tesla dude about 112-114 years back iirc.
Prior art from some Tesla dude about 112-114 years back iirc.
And without Maxwell their would have been no mathematics to even do that
Ideas are always evolved and expanded over time and you can patent that each step of the way, as it should be or we would limit innovation as it wouldn't be profitable to do the research in the first place.
And without Maxwell their would have been no mathematics to even do that
Ideas are always evolved and expanded over time and you can patent that each step of the way, as it should be or we would limit innovation as it wouldn't be profitable to do the research in the first place.
And you can bet that if people didn't improve on Edisons patents for the telegraph then we sure as hell wouldnt have the internet to discuss Apple on
I'm unsure how that in any way relates to this patent...
Apple have invented a new implementation of NFMR that allows you to daisy chain computer peripherals as long as they remain within 1m of each another. As far as I can see this hasn't previously been done but as i said if it has they wont be granted the patent.
That's the whole problem with this patent mess. Have Apple actually invented it? or are they just patenting an idea on how to do something so that no one else can in the future.
That's the whole problem with this patent mess. Have Apple actually invented it? or are they just patenting an idea on how to do something so that no one else can in the future.
My bet is the latter.
That's the point I made earlier. Provided the patent system is being used (and granted) correctly, you can't patent an "idea", you can only patent an "implementation" of an idea. There's a difference. Why can't people see that.
If you can think of a new and innovative way of achieving something that someone has already done, but it makes it simpler, cheaper, better, faster, then why shouldn't you be allowed a patent for that method?
I'd like to point out here, before I'm jumped on, that I'm speaking in purely hypothetical terms and not claiming that Apple has done any of these things.
That's the point I made earlier. Provided the patent system is being used (and granted) correctly, you can't patent an "idea", you can only patent an "implementation" of an idea. There's a difference. Why can't people see that.
If you can think of a new and innovative way of achieving something that someone has already done, but it makes it simpler, cheaper, better, faster, then why shouldn't you be allowed a patent for that method?
I'd like to point out here, before I'm jumped on, that I'm speaking in purely hypothetical terms and not claiming that Apple has done any of these things.
And therein lies the problem. That is how the patents are supposed to work. Sadly, the reality is different.
I'm not sure that this Apple method is significantly different to what has gone before to justify being patented, and simiarly I'm not even sure that the QI technology justified being patented either - is it really that different to the original Tesla implementations to justify patents .... ?
And therein lies the problem. That is how the patents are supposed to work. Sadly, the reality is different.
I'm not sure that this Apple method is significantly different to what has gone before to justify being patented, and simiarly I'm not even sure that the QI technology justified being patented either - is it really that different to the original Tesla implementations to justify patents .... ?
Indeed. That is the problem.
The other issue is that even if something is patented correctly - a new method of doing something that already exists, but that greatly innovates or improves the technology - the reporting of said patent will almost always great over-simplify the explanation of the patent being granted, and so it leads to millions more pointless "but that already exists" posts.
Whilst the idea might already exist, if the patent was granted, hopefully that specific implementation didn't previously exist (otherwise the patent should have been refused on the grounds of prior art).
There's a big disconnect between the patent description and how the patent grant is being reported and this could make it seem that the system is more broken that it is.
Comments
In order for you to be able to sue, you need to actually register the patent and have it granted.
Will do. Cheers
No spokes or hubs? Wasn't that designed (and patented?) by Sbarro years back?
Willing to bet that the QI wireless charging standard (which Apple likely won't ever support) shouldn't have had half of its patents validated.
Prior art from some Tesla dude about 112-114 years back iirc.
And without Maxwell their would have been no mathematics to even do that
Ideas are always evolved and expanded over time and you can patent that each step of the way, as it should be or we would limit innovation as it wouldn't be profitable to do the research in the first place.
That's the whole problem with this patent mess. Have Apple actually invented it? or are they just patenting an idea on how to do something so that no one else can in the future.
My bet is the latter.
That's the point I made earlier. Provided the patent system is being used (and granted) correctly, you can't patent an "idea", you can only patent an "implementation" of an idea. There's a difference. Why can't people see that.
If you can think of a new and innovative way of achieving something that someone has already done, but it makes it simpler, cheaper, better, faster, then why shouldn't you be allowed a patent for that method?
I'd like to point out here, before I'm jumped on, that I'm speaking in purely hypothetical terms and not claiming that Apple has done any of these things.
And therein lies the problem. That is how the patents are supposed to work. Sadly, the reality is different.
I'm not sure that this Apple method is significantly different to what has gone before to justify being patented, and simiarly I'm not even sure that the QI technology justified being patented either - is it really that different to the original Tesla implementations to justify patents .... ?
Indeed. That is the problem.
The other issue is that even if something is patented correctly - a new method of doing something that already exists, but that greatly innovates or improves the technology - the reporting of said patent will almost always great over-simplify the explanation of the patent being granted, and so it leads to millions more pointless "but that already exists" posts.
Whilst the idea might already exist, if the patent was granted, hopefully that specific implementation didn't previously exist (otherwise the patent should have been refused on the grounds of prior art).
There's a big disconnect between the patent description and how the patent grant is being reported and this could make it seem that the system is more broken that it is.
Or it could just be very broken indeed!